brb, going diving for antiques

Explanation: In the US Civil War, the largely anti-slavery Union fought against the explicitly pro-slavery secessionist Confederacy.

… but not everyone on the Union side was in it for the anti-slavery. Some felt that seceding after losing a democratic election was an offense to democracy, others, that the ‘votes’ in the South were farces held at bayonet-point. Many simply felt the South lacked the right or just cause to secede unilaterally - including states like Delaware and Maryland, whose allegiance would be important in the ~4 years of warfare to come.

Not everyone in the Union blue coalition were in it for the right reasons… but when a minority ideology (radical abolitionism) fighting a monstrous enemy, you take what allies you can get.

One foe at a time!

Not everyone in the Union blue coalition were in it for the right reasons… but when a minority ideology (radical abolitionism) fighting a monstrous enemy, you take what allies you can get.

One foe at a time!

To the airline staff: “I m-meant to miss the plane…”

To the drinking buddies he missed at the Prancing Pony: “I was… delayed.”

If it wasn’t them, honestly, it would’ve been another set of conservative aristocratic shitheads. Even after winning the civil war, Caesar was fundamentally a reformer, not a revolutionary. Getting rid of all of his enemies might have forestalled the coup attempt a little longer - long enough to see how his Persian campaign would’ve turned out, which would be interesting - but the core issue was that the society of the Late Roman Republic was fucked. The individuals mattered less than the whole rotten structure/power dynamic.

The right man in the right place can make all the difference. Socialist USMC veteran General Smedley Butler is a hero in this house o7

Yep. Evidence of malnutrition increases in early agricultural societies, while signs of intermittent starvation decrease.

No perfect solutions…

https://www.khm.at/en/artworks/rundschild-373817-1

https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010139554

Best lil guys, they recharge my shields

Luckily, I grew up in a time (and state - deep blue) where it was taught, but even then I was acutely aware that it was a very recent change in the curriculum. In many places in the US I’m sure it’s still not on the curriculum - or quietly skipped or skimmed over.

Reformers in general have a very high casualty rate, empire or not.

Any reformer necessarily has at least some principles, in the actions they take, if not necessarily in their deepest soul. And honestly, the same with anti-reform crusaders.

The issue is that the vast majority of actors are neither pro-reform nor anti-reform idealists, but purely self-interested, with no (or almost no) ideals expressed in the actions they take. Maybe in their day-to-day life you could have a conversation with them and find some values deep in their rotten hearts, but in terms of what they do, overwhelmingly it shakes out to self-preservation and self-promotion, not always in that order.

In other words, anyone with a scrap of principle is fighting with one hand behind their back, while amoral scum can always pick the ‘most likely path of success’ for their career.

On the other hand, precisely because of how many actors are amoral scum, idealists (or an opportunist who takes up an idealist cause with the same level of consistency as an idealist) with charisma can build very enduring and loyal power bases. This can be… dangerous, both because of the threat it represents to the powers that be, and because of the corrosive nature of power and adoration on human beings… but it also provides a path to victory over the brutal realpolitik of non-idealist actors.

Just gotta watch for that knife in the back… it’s always someone close to you…

If the women don’t find you handsome, they should at least find you handy!

Antifa supersoldier spotted o7

Fellow Chad Populare spotted

Explanation: By the standards of ~1900 AD USA, Theodore Roosevelt - then governor of New York - was a firebrand and a radical progressive. Not a socialist by any means - but dangerous enough to the profits and exploitation of corporations that the ‘pro-business’ wing of the Republican Party felt he needed to be removed, especially from a choice piece of property like New York state! Unfortunately for them, he was quite popular in New York. Fortunately for them, he was also ambitious and had a massive ego. So they offered him the ultimate “do-nothing ego boost” job - the vice presidency of a conservative Republican running for a second term - McKinley!

For those unaware of US politics (you have my envy), the vice presidency has very few roles of actual importance - but it’s very visible, which makes it commonly coveted by those who yearn for the presidency. Thing is, if the vice president doesn’t get their party’s nomination after the current president, that’s 4 years (or worse, 8) wasted with effectively no accomplishments to show for it - toxic to most political careers. Especially for a very ‘vigorous’ individual like TR, who was noted for a constant posture of activity and relentlessness. And at that time, neither party held primaries - both parties essentially picked their candidates in smoke-filled rooms by the vote of fellow politicians, not the rank-and-file, making blocking a popular candidate - like Roosevelt - still difficult, but far from impossible - especially if the popular candidate had a way of making foes with established politicians.

TR didn’t have to wait the traditional four years to make a try for the presidency, though - McKinley was assassinated only a few months later, and one of the roles of the Vice President is taking over if the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office.

Oops.

Ah, I enjoy writing these up! I’m just happy that they’re appreciated too!

Explanation: Napoleon Bonaparte invaded the Russian Empire in 1812 for refusing to comply with his ‘Continental System’ meant to freeze out Britain (his most intransigent foe) from European trade.

Funny enough, he could have arrived as a liberator, having promised liberation to the Poles, and with many Russian serfs eagerly anticipating liberation by a son of the French Revolution. Unfortunately for them (and ultimately, for Napoleon as well), Napoleon was self-interested first, and a son of the French Revolution a distant second - as noted by the fact that he took up the fucking crown of France. The serf unrest which eagerly greeted his invading forces was brushed off, as Napoleon wished to make a favorable peace treaty with Russia, not upend the traditional cruelties of feudalism in Russia.

When his forces had to withdraw for a lack of supply come winter, few of the serfs mourned the French dead. What is one enabler of the boyars compared to another? What is the difference between them? Nichevo.

Napoleon’s forces would be shattered by this retreat, his war would end in total failure, his enemies would be emboldened, and they would band together to overthrow Napoleon entirely - and institute an even worse absolutist monarchy over France in his place.

In this, a tweet from a modern imperialist idiot ruling over the USA is modified to fit Napoleon - though Napoleon, at least, had significant intelligence and areas of competency - just too little personal virtue and introspection, and too much pride and ambition, to fully leverage them. He could certainly type a more coherent threat than that.